An incredibly belated grievance against the X-men movie franchiase...

The bloody 'Ross and Rachel' of the Marvel universe and somehow they manage to go FOUR movies without ever managing to encounter each other? In what plane of existence does this even make sense?

I was bothered by the error in chronology when you made Bobby Drake a teenager like Rogue (whom I refuse to refer to as 'Marie' - everyone knows you're not supposed to know Rogue's name - sheesh), when he really should have been in the same age bracket as Jean, Scott and even the Beast. No, I left that one alone.

But it occurs to me with the latest film, Wolverine Origins, that myself and other fans of "Robit" (yes I am stealing the soap opera couple-name-contraction thing, because comics in so many ways are like soap operas - constant partner swapping, ambiguous deaths, far-fetched over-the-top storylines) are going to to be thwarted from ever getting to witness the wretched, frustrating, so full of sexual tension you can cut it with Psylocke's psychic knife (yeah, you see what I did there?) cat and mouse game that is Gambit and Rogues relationship in all it's live-action glory, and it's all because of this fundamentally flawed chronology you have created.

Let's recap:

X-men: Rogue is introduced as roughly 16, maybe 17 years old. She's place under the tutelage of the 'original' x-men, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm etc. Since they're teachers we can safely assume they're roughly 25-30 years of age (although Famke Janssen looks way older). Inexplicably, Bobby Drake aka Iceman is also a strapping young 16/17 year old.

We pretty much continue on under the same assumptions for the next two movies, so let's flash forward:

Wolverine: Origins; Here we are introduced to a rather smokin' hot Gambit, which is no less than would be expected, since as many would agree, Gambit's probably one of the MOST drool-inducing cartoon/animated characters out there.
This Gambit looks anywhere from 25 to 30.. one could even presume him to be a very fit 35. Granted, he could be a very wordly 18. One can only hope, since in this film we also meet a pre-X-men Scott Summers, who looks to be verging on the tender age of 15-18.

So assuming I'm correct, this puts Gambit anywhere from 20 to 30 years Rogue's senior. Which definitely puts an 'ick' factor on the whole thing.

As far as not wanting to look at Anna Paquin, it's not personal.. I actually like her as an actress. It's just seems to show a lack of imagination and/or cow-towing to the masses to draw the character based on the actor who played them.

I mean, no one saw Josie suddenly start looking suspiciously like Rachel Leigh Cook, did they?

Was there any Josie and the Pussycats media outside the movie at the time? Besides - that looks is set in stone. Rogue's been around since, what, '82, and countless artists have drawn her on a regular basis, with no two artists doing her the same way (although there are visual similarities between Silvestri's, Lee's, and the Kubert brothers'). That being said, I fully agree with you that Marvel shouldn't kowtow to the movie fans with regards to the art. It's usually just a temporary phase, depending on the artist and editorial mandates.

Oh, and I was right there with you when Famke Jansen was cast and, although I like her in the roll, she was clearly not the best choice continuity-wise.